Mohit Kumar @ Kaka vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) & 61(2)(k) B.N.S. & under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶13

While pressing the application for bail, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶14

It is stated that co-accused namely Raguvendra Mani Tiwari @ Daddu and Raghuvansh Mani @ Sajan Tiwari has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order(s) dated 11.08.2025 and 20.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No(s). 7327 of 2025 and 8340 of 2025. The order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8340 of 2025 reads as under:-

¶15

" 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. I have

¶16

BAIL No. 386 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

also heard learned counsel for the complainant.

¶19

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the deceased Shatroghan Dwivedi was murdered by the named accused persons along with the applicant by hatching a conspiracy. It is further alleged that the present applicant and Mohit Verma after calling the deceased over the phone, administered liquor to him. After the deceased was intoxicated, he was taken to the field of a co-accused where he was shot. The allegation against the present applicant is that he assisted the co-accused in commission of offence.

¶20

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. The criminal history of six cases has been explained in para 8 of the supplementary affidavit and in the rejoinder affidavit. It is submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident. Last seen evidence has been given against the applicant to the effect that on 23.4.2025 at about 9.40p.m. the accused applicant was seen towards Dipwabagh dam along with the co-accused Mohit Verma.

¶21

It is the admitted case in the counter affidavit of the prosecution that the accused applicant returned home after 41 minute. This last seen evidence as well as the confessional statement of the applicant are the two circumstances which have been used against the applicant. There is no other material against the applicant. Only to show good work, the police shot the applicant at his leg and false recovery of a country made pistol has been shown. The applicant is in jail since 29.4.2025.

¶22

The co-accused Raghvendra Mani Tiwari has been released on bail vide order dated 11.8.2025 passed in Bail No.7327 of 2025.

¶23

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶24

4.Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the applicant's CDR shows that he was at the location of the incident.

¶25

Learned counsel for the complainant could not dispute the fact that except last seen evidence, there is no other material against the applicant.

¶26

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail order of the co-accused, named above, the case is of circumstantial evidence, except last seen evidence, prima facie there appears to be no other material, chain of circumstances does not seem to be complete, the applicant has explained criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the

¶27

BAIL No. 386 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶30

6.Let the applicant Raghuvansh Mani alias Sajan Tiwari, involved in Case Crime No.103 of 2025 under sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(1)Ka BNS, 3/25 Arms Act, P.s. Kotwali Nagar, district Balrampur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶31

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶32

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶34

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶35

7.The application is allowed accordingly.

¶36

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial. "

¶37

It is further stated that the applicant, having no criminal history, is in judicial custody since 27.04.2025. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶38

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶39

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced

¶40

BAIL No. 386 of 2026

¶41

4

¶42

by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also that co-accused persons has already been released on bail by this Court as also chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶43

Let the applicant- Mohit Kumar @ Kaka be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶44

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶45

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶46

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶47

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶48

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶49

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶50

(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶51

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶52

BAIL No. 386 of 2026

¶53

5

¶54

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶55

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶56

Application is disposed of.

¶57

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶58

January 22, 2026

¶59

Arti/-

¶60

Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohit Kumar @ Kaka v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar @ Kaka v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs Dr. Brijendra Singh, v.C., Acharya Narendra Dev Agriculture and Tech. University, Ayodhya

Kuldeep Lam @ Kuldeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Juvenile Delinquent 'a' Thru. His Natural Guardian / Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Premnath Pal @ Kalahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sunita Gautam @ Nasreen vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.